Some Countries Want To Ban 'Information Weapons' 321
DrgnDancer sends in an NPR piece on recent efforts to control so-called "information weapons" on the Internet. What's interesting is that the term "information weapon," as defined by many of the countries trying to limit them, doesn't mean what you would think. It's closer to the old Soviet term "ideological aggression." "At a UN disarmament conference in 2008, Sergei Korotkov of the Russian Defense Ministry argued that anytime a government promotes ideas on the Internet with the goal of subverting another country's government — even in the name of democratic reform — it should qualify as 'aggression.' And that, in turn, would make it illegal under the UN Charter. 'Practically any information operation conducted by a state or a number of states against another state would be qualified as an interference into internal affairs,' Korotkov said through an interpreter. 'So any good cause, like [the] promotion of democracy, cannot be used as a justification for such actions.' The Russians, and a lot of other countries such as Iran and China, apparently consider the free exchange of information to be an information technology threat. One that must be managed by treaty."
Can you cover me too, bro? (Score:5, Funny)
Not happening (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Can you cover me too, bro? (Score:4, Funny)
Ain't freedom a bitch? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why would the US / EU want to broadcast Democra (Score:4, Funny)
The 24 hour propaganda radio was highly effective. Same with the 24 hour propaganda movies and satellite TV broadcasts.
Wait, you're not talking about Warner, MGM, Michael Jackson, and Levi Jeans?
Re:Twitter as an ideological weapon (Score:3, Funny)
Well then you might just start a flame war over the user friendliness and ease of use of an apple versus a tuna sandwich.
Re:Information as a weapon (Score:3, Funny)